dragonagefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Shields (Dragon Age II)
Act numbers I find it very annoying when I try searching through the shields in order of appearence (ie by which act it is available in) only to find that over half of them do not have this listed even if their notes clearly state when, where and how to procure these items. I gave the template a quick glance-over but I don't have the energy or time to learn the code and start fixing it (it also looked very messy for a beginner like me). Instead, I would like to ask anyone willing to please, either explain why there's a lack of information (for example, if there's a discussion somewhere else on the wiki one should be aware of) or to please edit the code to fix this problem. Thanks in advance. (talk) 21:22, September 3, 2011 (UTC) :You have to add this information on each article, not on this page: |act = 1 between (see Shield of the Flame for an example).--'D.' (talk ·''' ) 21:32, September 3, 2011 (UTC) Categories What is the purpose of separate metal/round shield categories and lists? These are just model variation names that don't affect shield stats and don't even accurately describe them (it looks like BioWare assigned the names randomly): * some "metal" shields are round and wooden, * some "round" shields are square and metal. Mostlyautumn (talk) 18:26, August 14, 2012 (UTC) :I was thinking the same thing a few days ago. I find it odd that there's three lists; in DA2 shields are one instance where subcategories seem to add complication and confusion with no benefit. I can see no real difference beyond aesthetics, which are often wrong in the game anyhow, rendering its only potential purpose useless. It becomes an annoyance if someone wants to find the shield with the most rune slots or highest armor, and there's three pages to find and examine for one item. I'm not sure if it was intended for people to use both shields '''and a subcategory for every item, but if that is the case it doesn't seem to be working out. Round shields has only one item listed, and Metal shields five. 19:51, August 14, 2012 (UTC) ::I think at the moment it is mostly to keep it consistent with the way lists were made for DAO shields (e.g., one master list for shields, then separate lists for each type). I was slowly adding each shield to its correct type, but stopped a while ago to do other stuff. ::I guess it's mostly about being nit-picky about details, regardless if it's even just only for vanity purposes in my opinion (e.g., the infobox value for type should be "Round shield" or "Metal shield"—a bit like how we list materials for equipment in DA2). I don't find any particular reason to keep three pages other than for consistency, so feel free to tag the pages for deletion. 18:14, August 27, 2012 (UTC) :::At first i was thinking about this and thought maybe ""round shield"" and ""metal shield"" categories must be removed and then i came to the thought that ""Dragon age 2 shields"" category must be removed and shields must be separated in ""round shield"" and ""metal shield"" categories since armor are separated to ""light""/""medium""/""heavy""+""chest piece""/""helmet""/""gloves""/""boots"" category and bows are separated to ""shortbow""and""longbow"" categories but now that i think about it maybe we should use Shields (Origins) style and add separate sections in ""Dragon age 2 shields"" category and keep both ""Dragon age 2 shields"" category and ""round shield"" and ""metal shield"" categories but make a all in one category with name of ""Dragon age 2 bows"" to have all bow in one place so people can search among them easily JH EP (talk) 07:45, November 18, 2013 (UTC) Coming back to this discussion, I don't see any reasons for keeping round and metal shields separate as this distinction depends solely on shield description in the tooltip and has nothing to do with the shield appearance and stats. I propose to just delete the extra pages and categories and dump everything under shields. The description can be kept in the infoboxes like d-day suggested, i.e. "|type = Round shield". 06:16, November 20, 2013 (UTC) :Despite these issues I appreciated the fact that there was a second level of categorization based on their type, much like their Origins counterparts. If these two categories are deleted, would you propose another (and more suitable) category to replace them? 07:37, November 20, 2013 (UTC) ::DA2 shields can be split into generic and unique but they don't have types in DAO sense. 07:52, November 20, 2013 (UTC) :::Now that i think about it,i see that heavy/kite/targe/buckler types were actually determining DAO shields's properties (Defense,Fatigue,Missile deflection and attribute Requirement) while this not the case in DA2 and type are merely for show in DA2. so i agree with Mostlyautumn's suggestion to delete redundant categories. :::also spliting shields into generic and unique is a good thing but all of shields that is listed here are unique ones and generic ones which have no stable properties are not listed here yet.although i can hep in gathering information on generic shields and their possible properties. :::JH EP (talk) 16:37, November 20, 2013 (UTC)